Attention Athiest, Prove to me that God doesn't exist!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Volf99:
So I was watching a clip of the Watchmen on Youtube and there seems that Dr. Manhattan's comment about the behavior/existence of God(s) has caused numerous heated debates over whether God, Gods or some form of a high being exist. However one reoccurring thing that I see from atheist is that they state that the religious have to provide the burden of proof. Now I have seen religious people attempt to satisfy the request from the Atheist, but they usually don't provide strong proof that God exist. However when I see religious people as for atheist to provide the burden of proof that there is nothing higher up, they out right refuse to do so. Now I realize that religious people are the ones making the claim, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask atheist people to provide evidence of their believes. So I ask the atheist of Escapist, if you were to try to provide proof that there is no God/Gods/Divine being, what would your evidence be?

TL:DR Atheist always demand that religious people provide the burden of proof, however if it was a debate where you had to provide evidence for your stance, what evidence would/could atheist use for their stance?

P.S.Keep in mind, I'm not asking atheist to provide proof that an organized religion if faulty, I'm asking atheist to provide proof that the existence of a higher being is fictional

EDIT: Alternatively, for the theist/religious people on Escapist, what evidence do you have that proves in the existence of God/Gods/Divine essence?

EDIT 2: I'm kind of annoyed with some of the answers I'm getting but I think that's my fault that I didn't express myself clearly. I'm not looking to argue the proper application of the use of "burden of proof", nor am I trying to use this thread as a sly why to take cheap jabs at atheist or convince people to believe in any form of a diety. I guess what I'm looking for is an atheist equivalent to a holy text/concrete source that made them believe that atheism is correct. I'm asking for this because when I see some religious people challenged, they use a Bible/Koran/Holy Text as a source or the source of their confidence that what they believe is correct. So, what literature/scientific journal/perhaps even personal experience made you conclude that atheism is correct?

You are asking people to prove a negative. How about you prove that there aren't any pink unicorns on Mars? Unless you go over every square inch of Mars, as well as any possible underground caverns, then you can't. The closest tbhing you can say is that here isn't any ecvidence for Martian pink unicorns.
Same witht he existence of God. I can't disprove the existence of a deity, i can only show that there isn't any evidence FOR one.

"When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only: what are the facts, and what is the truth that the facts bear out (...) Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, but look only and surely at what are the facts" (Bertrand Russel)

Against critical thinking like that, god stands no chance at all.

Volf99:
So I was watching a clip of the Watchmen on Youtube and there seems that Dr. Manhattan's comment about the behavior/existence of God(s) has caused numerous heated debates over whether God, Gods or some form of a high being exist. However one reoccurring thing that I see from atheist is that they state that the religious have to provide the burden of proof. Now I have seen religious people attempt to satisfy the request from the Atheist, but they usually don't provide strong proof that God exist. However when I see religious people as for atheist to provide the burden of proof that there is nothing higher up, they out right refuse to do so. Now I realize that religious people are the ones making the claim, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask atheist people to provide evidence of their believes. So I ask the atheist of Escapist, if you were to try to provide proof that there is no God/Gods/Divine being, what would your evidence be?

TL:DR Atheist always demand that religious people provide the burden of proof, however if it was a debate where you had to provide evidence for your stance, what evidence would/could atheist use for their stance?

P.S.Keep in mind, I'm not asking atheist to provide proof that an organized religion if faulty, I'm asking atheist to provide proof that the existence of a higher being is fictional

EDIT: Alternatively, for the theist/religious people on Escapist, what evidence do you have that proves in the existence of God/Gods/Divine essence?

EDIT 2: I'm kind of annoyed with some of the answers I'm getting but I think that's my fault that I didn't express myself clearly. I'm not looking to argue the proper application of the use of "burden of proof", nor am I trying to use this thread as a sly why to take cheap jabs at atheist or convince people to believe in any form of a diety. I guess what I'm looking for is an atheist equivalent to a holy text/concrete source that made them believe that atheism is correct. I'm asking for this because when I see some religious people challenged, they use a Bible/Koran/Holy Text as a source or the source of their confidence that what they believe is correct. So, what literature/scientific journal/perhaps even personal experience made you conclude that atheism is correct?

There is no atheist text dude!
Anyway, say you get on a plane, you cannot prove that it's NOT going to crash can you?
But assuming it's well maintained, competent pilot, good weather etc, you can be very sure that it won't crash.
Same with god, there is not an iota of proof that any one of them exists, and most if not all are contrary to how we understand the way the Universe works.
So I can feel confidence in saying, god does not exist
Let's take a concrete example:
The 10 commandments, supposedly given by god to Moses.
Why not say something useful, like wash your fucking hands before preparing food, or surgery??
One is infinitely more useful, and would have saved countless lives over the centuries, the other is what you'd expect from a Bronze Age cult. Hardly evidence for a creator of everything is it?
Not to mention talking trees, talking animals, heck I'm sure in some religions there are even talking stones!!
Is any of that shit credible?
Not to me.
Ergo, god does not exist.

Attention Theist! We don't have to. It's that simple. If you recognize that the onus of proof is on the Theist, then I'm unsure what you're expecting here. Many Atheists don't even claim "there is no god," they say "i do not believe a god exists." See the difference? One is a claim about the the nature of reality, and the other is a rejection of a claim about the nature of reality.

Challenge Accepted.

What does it say in the Bible will happen if you don't follow the laws of God? You get boils and tumours. (Deuteronomy 28:27, 28:35) Now, obviously there are a lot of people who don't follow the law of God, why do these people not have tumours and boils?

Personally, I don't follow the law of God at all. Hell, I've broken it a lot, I even broke it just then by using a curse-word! Yet, I neither have boils nor tumours. You can't explain that.

Why is this debate even necessary? If you believe the bible or torah or koran is accurate down to the last letter, you are demonstrably wrong. If you believe you impeccably understand the laws and origins of the universe, you are also wrong. The spectrum in between is varied and rich, and there is plenty of room for common ground and civil, cordial disagreements.

Daverson:
Challenge Accepted.

What does it say in the Bible will happen if you don't follow the laws of God? You get boils and tumours. (Deuteronomy 28:27, 28:35) Now, obviously there are a lot of people who don't follow the law of God, why do these people not have tumours and boils?

Personally, I don't follow the law of God at all. Hell, I've broken it a lot, I even broke it just then by using a curse-word! Yet, I neither have boils nor tumours. You can't explain that.

Checkmate.

Just so all of us atheists know, we're installing this guy in our head church.

We'll also be participating in group activities like not-playing baseball.

Zekksta:

Daverson:
Challenge Accepted.

What does it say in the Bible will happen if you don't follow the laws of God? You get boils and tumours. (Deuteronomy 28:27, 28:35) Now, obviously there are a lot of people who don't follow the law of God, why do these people not have tumours and boils?

Personally, I don't follow the law of God at all. Hell, I've broken it a lot, I even broke it just then by using a curse-word! Yet, I neither have boils nor tumours. You can't explain that.

Checkmate.

Just so all you theists know, we're installing this guy in our head church.

We'll also be participating in group activities like not-playing baseball.

Was that this week?
Damn-it!

I probably will be able to make it.

Volf99:
So, what literature/scientific journal/perhaps even personal experience made you conclude that atheism is correct?

This argument seems to remind me of the "If a woman is wearing revealing clothes and/or drinks she was asking to get raped" sounds like some excuse to protect old cultural perceptions.

What convinced me Atheism was correct is that no religion has brought forth any evidence to say their god exists, this means that their god has as much possibility to exist as Santa Claus or Unicorns, I can make up some bullshit like invisible anus's are flying through the solar system, or my own religion and it would have as much basis in reality or possibility of existing as any religion. People only treat religion differently as to protect the age old cultural perception that there has to be some chance it exists.

Prove to me that he does.

See, we're both in a rut here.

Atheism is the default position, we do not need to present evidence (burden of proof and that), as well you know. Kindly try to look at the issue of god's existence from our perspective.

Volf99:
So I was watching a clip of the Watchmen on Youtube and there seems that Dr. Manhattan's comment about the behavior/existence of God(s) has caused numerous heated debates over whether God, Gods or some form of a high being exist. However one reoccurring thing that I see from atheist is that they state that the religious have to provide the burden of proof. Now I have seen religious people attempt to satisfy the request from the Atheist, but they usually don't provide strong proof that God exist. However when I see religious people as for atheist to provide the burden of proof that there is nothing higher up, they out right refuse to do so. Now I realize that religious people are the ones making the claim, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask atheist people to provide evidence of their believes. So I ask the atheist of Escapist, if you were to try to provide proof that there is no God/Gods/Divine being, what would your evidence be?

TL:DR Atheist always demand that religious people provide the burden of proof, however if it was a debate where you had to provide evidence for your stance, what evidence would/could atheist use for their stance?

P.S.Keep in mind, I'm not asking atheist to provide proof that an organized religion if faulty, I'm asking atheist to provide proof that the existence of a higher being is fictional

EDIT: Alternatively, for the theist/religious people on Escapist, what evidence do you have that proves in the existence of God/Gods/Divine essence?

EDIT 2: I'm kind of annoyed with some of the answers I'm getting but I think that's my fault that I didn't express myself clearly. I'm not looking to argue the proper application of the use of "burden of proof", nor am I trying to use this thread as a sly why to take cheap jabs at atheist or convince people to believe in any form of a diety. I guess what I'm looking for is an atheist equivalent to a holy text/concrete source that made them believe that atheism is correct. I'm asking for this because when I see some religious people challenged, they use a Bible/Koran/Holy Text as a source or the source of their confidence that what they believe is correct. So, what literature/scientific journal/perhaps even personal experience made you conclude that atheism is correct?

You have to prove what you say is true, the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of god means I don't have to prove any non existence

If humanity did not exist, would God?

Volf99:

I'm asking for this because when I see some religious people challenged, they use a Bible/Koran/Holy Text as a source or the source of their confidence that what they believe is correct. So, what literature/scientific journal/perhaps even personal experience made you conclude that atheism is correct?

Here is where it gets weird: you can't prove atheism is correct nor can you prove Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc are correct. All you can do is poke at the inconsistencies and contradictions and call it a day. We can talk using logic until or faces fall off, but you can't apply logic to the supernatural.

Attempting to disprove something for which there is no evidence is a ridiculous notion.

crudus:

Volf99:

I'm asking for this because when I see some religious people challenged, they use a Bible/Koran/Holy Text as a source or the source of their confidence that what they believe is correct. So, what literature/scientific journal/perhaps even personal experience made you conclude that atheism is correct?

Here is where it gets weird: you can't prove atheism is correct nor can you prove Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc are correct. All you can do is poke at the inconsistencies and contradictions and call it a day. We can talk using logic until or faces fall off, but you can't apply logic to the supernatural.

Funnily enough, it's only the religions that have the inconsistencies and contradictions. Atheism doesn't have any of those problems at all.

okay to all those saying that cause evil exist god does not exist have never read the bible and therefore lack the knowledge to why bad things are allowed to happen. if life was perfect and there was no evil, there would be no good, there would also be knowledge or even progress, since progress is generally made to do good and not bad. god allows bad things to happen so that we will become stronger, do we deserve the things that happen to us sometimes? no but they happen, and will always happen, god has these things happen to put us through trials and test us, even Christians believe this. we as human beings have free will to decide what we do whether it be good or evil. also the bible states that anyone ignorant of what is bad or good cannot be held accountable for things they have done.

another thing dont do that stupid if god does not kill me for this god does not exist thing. its flawed and incredibly illogical. thats like saying if i smoke these cigarettes and they dont give me cancer they therefore dont cause cancer. such a weak argument. considering god has yet since the old testament struck people down with his own power, but have created events were men punished or killed by outside forces. such as the jews being driven out of Israel by other people cause the jews became prideful and went against god.

and inclosing the OP has created a stupid thread and i hope this gets locked or 404'd cause of the stupidity form all sides.

Olrod:

Funnily enough, it's only the religions that have the inconsistencies and contradictions. Atheism doesn't have any of those problems at all.

Atheism also doesn't have a 2000+ year old book to turn to. Well it does; you just point at a religious text and say "I am against that". Everybody still falls into the trap of taking the bible literally. Atheism also really doesn't have a substance behind it. It all varies from person to person anyway.

crudus:

Olrod:

Funnily enough, it's only the religions that have the inconsistencies and contradictions. Atheism doesn't have any of those problems at all.

Atheism also doesn't have a 2000+ year old book to turn to. Well it does; you just point at a religious text and say "I am against that". Everybody still falls into the trap of taking the bible literally.

No, they work primarily with sources such as geology, biology, and so on...

Olrod:

No, they work primarily with sources such as geology, biology, and so on...

I think I will call an induction fallacy, here. Not all atheists subscribe to the sciences to answer their (deep) questions(someone may not even care), nor do theists denounce science. They don't preclude each other. Hell, even the most devout, literal-bible-reading Christian would accept a lot of science (electricity, magnets, gravity, maybe astronomy, laws of motion).

crudus:

Olrod:

No, they work primarily with sources such as geology, biology, and so on...

I think I will call an induction fallacy, here.

I think you should call it on yourself, too.

crudus:

Well it does; you just point at a religious text and say "I am against that". Everybody still falls into the trap of taking the bible literally.

Atheism also really doesn't have a substance behind it.

And that it a "problem", how exactly?

Vegosiux:

I think you should call it on yourself, too.

Atheism also really doesn't have a substance behind it.

And that it a "problem", how exactly?

I have no clue where I committed it. It isn't a problem. I was saying that as a reason you can't poke holes at the inconsistencies. I was agreeing with that other guy.

crudus:

Vegosiux:

I think you should call it on yourself, too.

Atheism also really doesn't have a substance behind it.

And that it a "problem", how exactly?

I have no clue where I committed it. It isn't a problem. I was saying that as a reason you can't poke holes at the inconsistencies. I was agreeing with that other guy.

Must have been the late hour and me being tired then.

Volf99:
snip

How do you prove that god doesn't exist? Are you talking about the existence of a omnipotent being, or for an special example like the chrisian/jewish god Jahwe?
You can never prove that something does not exist, unless someone formulates a theorie that can be proven wrong. The thing is that atheism means that you don't believe in any of the existing religions - so if you'd want to prove atheism wrong, you'd have to prove a single religion right.
That's why religious people have the burden to prove their religion (or any religion) right. It's mean but the only way to prove atheism wrong, since it's a negative formualtion and we are back to you, defending your belief.

What I can do on the other hand, is prove specific religions wrong. Take for example any story of the creation of the world. If the specific god exists things must have happend as described. We can today say how it happend (without any doubt - the methods themselves are proven as well) and therefore also prove that the world was for example not created 6000 years ago and neither in 6 days (7th day was resting only), or that more than 2 humans existed around that time.
What can never be proven is the nonexistence of any omnipotent being (including alternative formulations of christian religion). If the first idea about it, is that it can do everything and that it's existence can never be proven - there is no point.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have any problem with people being religious. If that means that they live as better persons it's fine.
If people start wars, ignorance, supression and do bad things - then it's obviously bad. But that depends on you as a person and less on any real religious belive. People who do this use religion as an excuse for their purposes.

Volf99:
snip

1. Attention Nonbelievers, Prove to me that there are not Gnomes living in my shoes!

Should we default to the notion that there are Gnomes living in my shoes? Should I make this claim and challenge people to disprove it? NO. I need to have evidence of the Gnomes to make such a bold claim.

2. Atheism is the lack of belief in god. One doesn't need to prove that there is not god to lack belief in a god. Do you currently think that there is a magic velociraptor in your bathroom? No. You lack belief in the magic velociraptor. Do you need evidence that there is not a magic velociraptor in your bathroom to lack belief in the magic velociraptor? No.

Those were some fantastic analogies.

The greatest chance you have at disproving god, or at least the Yahweh, is through history.

http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

It is work like this, derived from professionals, that convinced me to drop religion all together.

Nukenfry:
The greatest chance you have at disproving god, or at least the Yahweh, is through history.

http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

It is work like this, derived from professionals, that convinced me to drop religion all together.

What he said. It's fairly easy to piece together the logic yourself after a little while.

Volf99:

EDIT 2: I'm kind of annoyed with some of the answers I'm getting but I think that's my fault that I didn't express myself clearly. I'm not looking to argue the proper application of the use of "burden of proof", nor am I trying to use this thread as a sly why to take cheap jabs at atheist or convince people to believe in any form of a diety. I guess what I'm looking for is an atheist equivalent to a holy text/concrete source that made them believe that atheism is correct. I'm asking for this because when I see some religious people challenged, they use a Bible/Koran/Holy Text as a source or the source of their confidence that what they believe is correct. So, what literature/scientific journal/perhaps even personal experience made you conclude that atheism is correct?

Err...atheists won't do something as childish as claim that we're correct because someone from 4000 years ago wrote something that kinda vaguely sounds like it supports us.

There ARE a plethora of anti-religious texts across history, the earliest of which would probably be Epicurus.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

EDIT: Regarding proof, the same proof that unicorns don't exist. You don't need evidence, the fact that there has never been any evidence OF its existence is really proof enough. Can they exist? Perhaps. Do they? No evidence, no reason to believe so.

chadachada123:

EDIT: Regarding proof, the same proof that unicorns don't exist. You don't need evidence, the fact that there has never been any evidence OF its existence is really proof enough. Can they exist? Perhaps. Do they? No evidence, no reason to believe so.

Oh yeah?

We have clear text and video based evidence that at least two Unicorns exist. One white, the other black. Now you might say "But Amnestic! That's clearly an anime and giant robots like that don't really exist."

EVIDENCE B DAWGS:

This is the RX-78-2.

The Unicorns are RX-0.

I rest my case.

Daverson:
Challenge Accepted.

What does it say in the Bible will happen if you don't follow the laws of God? You get boils and tumours. (Deuteronomy 28:27, 28:35) Now, obviously there are a lot of people who don't follow the law of God, why do these people not have tumours and boils?

Personally, I don't follow the law of God at all. Hell, I've broken it a lot, I even broke it just then by using a curse-word! Yet, I neither have boils nor tumours. You can't explain that.

How do you know that you don't have boils and tumours? You might have rather insignificant boils, and as yet unnoticed tumours. I'd see an oncologist immediately! And after that a dermatologist.

Off Topic: I couldn't resist responding to those giant robot, unicorn, non-anime pictures. Added to the fact that I need to post in the New Year...

ALL HAIL AMNESTIC! ALL HAIL AMNESTIC! ALL HAIL AMNESTIC! ALL HAIL AMNESTIC! ALL HAIL AMNESTIC! ALL HAIL AMNESTIC!

Ouch. My eyes.

On Topic:
As stated by many people, the burden of proof is on the person making a positive statement, such as ' the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster exists'. They have to prove their claim, not the atheists.

EDIT: Reading things regarding forum rules are not best done when rather tired. At least I didn't muck up typing 'I AGREE'.

EDIT 2: Oh yes - that was my first edit of the New Year.

Seanchaidh:

Daverson:
Challenge Accepted.

What does it say in the Bible will happen if you don't follow the laws of God? You get boils and tumours. (Deuteronomy 28:27, 28:35) Now, obviously there are a lot of people who don't follow the law of God, why do these people not have tumours and boils?

Personally, I don't follow the law of God at all. Hell, I've broken it a lot, I even broke it just then by using a curse-word! Yet, I neither have boils nor tumours. You can't explain that.

How do you know that you don't have boils and tumours? You might have rather insignificant boils, and as yet unnoticed tumours. I'd see an oncologist immediately! And after that a dermatologist.

I could, but that wouldn't really be counter-proof, as the scripture implies I'd be covered with boils and tumours. More tumour than man, in fact! Basically just a big pile of tumorous flesh covered in boils. I think you have to be besieged by heathens then eat your own kids as well, but I haven't actually read all of the Bible. Gets a bit droll after a while, you know?

Volf99:
However one reoccurring thing that I see from atheist is that they state that the religious have to provide the burden of proof.

Well as the old axiom goes 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. Claiming the existance of a divine being who can do these great feats and is omniscient and omnipotent requires concise, reccordable evidence of the impossible and unearthly being possible and earthly (it's fairly obvious where the big problem with trying to objectively prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the existance of Gods and deities lays, once you have managed to provide evidence and explanations for all of these miricles and events that people cite as evidence they stop being miricles since then they've been given mundane explanations in order to prove them).

Now I have seen religious people attempt to satisfy the request from the Atheist, but they usually don't provide strong proof that God exist.

Trying to provide solid evidence that God exists is inherantly a difficult and pointless endevor since when you have managed to define God with earthly and scientific terms and measurements then you've made it 'of this world' and no longer divine (in short, if you ever did manage to prove that there is a God then you'd likely find that it'd no longer be God since in the process of providing evidence it would now be bound by the laws of physics and everthing else that limits us as humans).

However when I see religious people as for atheist to provide the burden of proof that there is nothing higher up, they out right refuse to do so.

There is no burden of proof on Athiests because unlike religious people claiming the existance of a God without any tangible evidence the Athiest claim is actually falsafiable (an important thing to be considered in any line of scientific reasoning).

If you were to get physical evidence of a God (any God) then the Athiest point of view is immediately wrong (since there would in fact be a God and you'd have something physical to show for it) however the religious point of view is demanding that people accept that their God does exist not on any kind of observation or evidence but based upon the fact that they believe and have faith.

In short, Athiests are saying that the fact that we've never found any reliable, solid evidence of God's existance means that there isn't a God (which isn't an unreasonable claim, we haven't found evidence of Zeus or Thor too so it's safe to assume they don't exist either) while the religious (often Christian but can be other religions too) side is often requiring that people just believe the otherwise unbelieveable.

Now I realize that religious people are the ones making the claim, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask atheist people to provide evidence of their believes. So I ask the atheist of Escapist, if you were to try to provide proof that there is no God/Gods/Divine being, what would your evidence be?

The fact that we haven't found any evidence of a divine being anywhere in the cosmos. We can see distant stars, galaxies and other marvels in space yet at no point has anyone seen, heard from, talked to or otherwise managed to provide a reliable account of an encounter or sighting of God in any form.

Most of what we get to support it is mass belief, stuff that could be viewed as statistically random chance (so I'm not buying the Virgin Mary on the grilled cheese sandwich either) or are things that appear to be based highly on subjective opinion and testimony (the sort of things science has taught us generally can't be trusted).

I guess what I'm looking for is an atheist equivalent to a holy text/concrete source that made them believe that atheism is correct. I'm asking for this because when I see some religious people challenged, they use a Bible/Koran/Holy Text as a source or the source of their confidence that what they believe is correct. So, what literature/scientific journal/perhaps even personal experience made you conclude that atheism is correct?

The weird thing that needs to be said about Atheists is that there isn't really an equivilent or parralell to religion within it because Atheism isn't a religion, it is just simply the absence of a religious belief.

I have had numerous encounters where Christians in particular seem to be under the impression that Atheism is a religion in it's own right and as such has comparisons (scientists = priests, text books = the Bible etc.) which to me just alludes to a certain underlaying ignorance that is present (I know that not all Christians are like this but it seems a bit odd that as an Atheist I've gone to the effort of learning and understanding various parts the Christian belief yet the same can't often be said of Christians towards Atheists).

As for what made me decide to be an Atheist, I was brought up exposed to a lot of different choices in terms of beliefs as a child and was frequently told that I was free to believe whatever I wanted (my Dad and I would frequently debate things such as philosophy, explanations for belief, morality and things such as the formation of earth and the origin of life and evolution, I had a weird childhood). I learned a lot about major world religions and spoke to people who believed in them and while I did find their opinions fascinating and did respect them for it I just didn't believe in any of the opinions they held so I looked into more scientific explanations of the world and evolution (the number of arguements I've had about that are high too) and found them to be more firmly based in reason and logic.

I have no problem with religion or the people who follow it, I just disagree with them.

image

Let's try this then. Require a certain amount of common sense.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked